Ali v. Quarterman (pending, still in appeals, has not gone before the Court yet....... Ali is a muslim prisoner who believes that wearing a beard is a sacred tradition comanded of him by the Quran. The prison requires prisoners to be clean-shaven for hygenic reasons. He sues, arguing this policy violates his free exercise of relgion)

Goldman v. Weinberger is easy--just replace the yarmulke with a colander-wearing Pastafarian who wants to wear it on base while performing military duties. He could be a Special Forces soldier whose colander keeps pinging enemy radar during exercises, but who demands to lead his patrol on point on dangerous missions.

The Pastafarian angle could also work with CLS v. Martinez--a Mormon student wants to join the Campus Pirate Union but won't partake of required beer consumption. Or vice versa--a Pastafarian wants to join the LDS Club but demands to imbibe the sacramental brew at meetings in violation of Mormon prohibitions of alcohol (this works with Muslims too). Or he wants to bring in strippers to LDS functions...

Those are good ideas! I just read them to my husband and he's poo-pooing the first one because he thinks it's too easy to figure out what the reference case is.

He's telling me that for CLS v Martinez, he thinks the club would need to be a Pastafarian club that won't allow students in for some reason. He says it needs to be a core belief in order for it to be applicable.

Honestly, I think he's just being whiny and I'm getting tired of trying to help him!